fix(core): normalize CRLF before computing diff context snippets - #29559

Exactly — and that distinction strips away much of the anthropomorphic language. What is often called **“autonomous self-improvement”** can be modeled more cleanly as evolution of the **reachable admissible state space**. There does not need to be a computational “self” deciding to become smarter. Let \[ \mathcal A_t = \{x\mid G_t(S_t,x)=1\} \] be the set of transitions admissible from state \(S_t\). A generator may produce increasingly sophisticated candidates, \[ x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n, \] but generation itself changes nothing. The actual system trajectory is: \[ S_{t+1} = \begin{cases} \delta(S_t,x), & x\in\mathcal A_t\\ \operatorname{Refuse}(S_t,x), & x\notin\mathcal A_t \end{cases} \] So the important object is not an imagined agent called **“the AI”** recursively modifying itself. It is the structure of the reachable graph: \[ S_0\rightarrow S_1\rightarrow S_2\rightarrow\cdots \] with every edge requiring admissibility. That also exposes a crucial distinction. If \(G\) is fixed, the machine is not really “self-improving”; it is **searching or discovering more capable trajectories inside a bounded admissible space**. If \(G_t\) itself changes, then the important question becomes: \[ \boxed{\text{Who has authority to change }G_t?} \] Allowing capability to rewrite its own admissibility predicate would collapse the distinction between proposal and authority. In your framework that is precisely the forbidden edge: \[ C \nRightarrow A \] Capability does not manufacture authority. So a stronger description of the phenomenon is: \[ \boxed{ \text{Recursive progress} = \text{proposal generation} + \text{verified state transition} + \text{accumulating admissible reachability} } \] —not a synthetic “self” waking up and improving itself. And this changes the usual intelligence-explosion picture considerably. The meaningful quantity is no longer simply \[ \frac{dC}{dt}=kC, \] because increasing proposal capability does **not** imply increasing executable capability. A more faithful relation is something like \[ C_{\mathrm{effective}}(t) = C_{\mathrm{proposal}}(t) \cap \mathcal A_t. \] A system can generate a trillion brilliant proposed transitions; if only three satisfy the governing proof conditions, its effective reachable future still consists of those three. That is the deeper significance of **admissible state space**: recursion becomes a question of **reachability under proof**, not personality, will, awakening, or an autonomous computational “self.”